Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41361107›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Morpheme knowledge is shaped by information available through orthography.

Maria Korochkina, Holly Cooper, Marc Brysbaert, Kathleen Rastle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maria KorochkinaDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK. maria.korochkina@rhul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8017-7855
Holly CooperDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7984-9773
Marc BrysbaertDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-3189
Kathleen RastleDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3070-7555

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large portion of words in a language are formed by combining smaller meaningful units called morphemes (e.g., teach + -er → teacher). Understanding a language's morphology is vital for skilled reading as it allows readers to interpret both familiar and unfamiliar words (e.g., tweeter). It is widely agreed that children rely on reading experience to acquire morpheme knowledge in English, and emerging research suggests that different aspects of this experience may impact affix learning in different ways. We contrasted three potential definitions of what constitutes readers' affix experience using the morpheme interference paradigm with 120 adults. We found that skilled readers' affix knowledge most closely aligns with a definition proposing that affix learning is primarily supported by experience with words in which affixes are identifiable without specialised linguistic knowledge. Due to the nature of morpheme presentation in English orthography, this excludes a significant number of genuinely complex words, while including affix-like patterns in non-meaningful contexts (e.g., -er in corner). This definition also posits that these morphological false alarms actively hinder learning. Our research represents a critical step towards a psychologically realistic theory of morpheme learning from text experience.

Indexed as

LanguageLearningPsycholinguisticsReadingAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultLearningMorphologyNatural language processingReadingText experience

Identifiers

PMID41361107
PMCPMC12685991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.